Britain Figures It Out

Finally...after foiling a terrorist attack that would have killed hundreds of people, the folks running things on the other side of the pond have gotten wise. They get it. The government of Great Britain is working with airports to implement new security protocols. And what exactly are those new rules being put in place going to do?

Will they intensify the strip-searching of little old ladies? Nope. Are they going to foolishly confiscate every passenger's hair gel, nail clippers and anything else that might remotely be used as a weapon? That doesn't appear to be part of the new protocol. No..the plan is to look for people that behave suspiciously, have unusual travel plans or are of a certain religion or ethnicity.

In other words, they're going to start profiling!!!!

Can you imagine that!

A specific group of people is trying to kill innocent British citizens, and now the Brits are actually going to concentrate their preventative efforts on that specific group of people? In another era this would have made perfect sense to everyone ... but this is the era of political correctness!

The British version of the TSA, something called the Department for Transport, has decided that putting people in long lines at the airport for random searches is a waste of time. And they're right, it is. Would the police randomly search people on the street if they had a report that an Arab male had just robbed a bank? No, they would not. Do authorities stop white people and ask for ID when they are in pursuit of a black carjacker? They do not. This isn't racism. It isn't bigotry. It's simply common sense. You receive a threat from members of an identifiable group -- and you concentrate your response on the members of that identifiable group.

It's not racial profiling. It's not religious profiling. It's terrorist profiling. No ... not all Muslims are terrorists. But with only a very few -- and long ago --- isolated incidents, all terrorists are Muslims. Just about every terrorist that has hijacked a plane in the last 30 years has fit one, single description: Arab Muslim. That is the description of the suspect. The terrorists who blew up nightclubs in Bali, the terrorists who wanted to lop off the head of the Canadian prime minister ... Muslims. Every one. Every terrorist that planned to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic last week was an Muslim who, if not from the Middle East, was of Middle East decent. This isn't rocket surgery. So ... get ready for the howls of protest from the Islamic community in Britain. If the Brits stick to their guns on this one perhaps it will evolve into one more reason for Muslims who truly want to live their lives in peace ... to be left alone and to leave alone ... to rebel against those of their religion who have brought this upon them.

Racial profiling or call it whatever the you want will save lives and save hours of waiting in line at airport check-ins.

Israel has been racial profiling Arab Muslim males in the age range of 17-45 since El Al first started offering flights in the Late 60's. And make no mistake about it, El Al (the only israeli airline) has had by far the most hijacking/sabotaging attempts of any airline by muslim terrorist, yet there has only been one successfull hijacking which was more than 30 years ago. Israeli Airport security agents are actually trained on how to properlly profile, and can sniff out a terrorist like a coonhound.

It is simple insanity to do the same check on a elderly women in a wheeler chair as you would do to a 25 year old saudi muslim.

America has to come to grips that profiling is neccessary if we aim to win this "war on terror"

the founding fathers in no way could have envisioned what we are going through now and we are simply taking a far too strict interpertation of the constitution. If we still require "probable cause" rather than "reseaonable suspicion" as a prerequisite to take action we are in for a world of hurt.

Racial profiling or call it whatever the you want will save lives and save hours of waiting in line at airport check-ins.

I dunno, I kind of like seeing them pull Al Gore and little old ladies out of line and searching them. Waste of resources? Of course. Stupid and not likely to prevent a future attack? Absolutely. But I like it for two reasons. One, it pisses people off. Two, it makes it pretty clear, once people take their blinders off, who the government really thinks is a threat: its own citizens.

Racial profiling or call it whatever the you want will save lives and save hours of waiting in line at airport check-ins.

Israel has been racial profiling Arab Muslim males in the age range of 17-45 since El Al first started offering flights in the Late 60's. And make no mistake about it, El Al (the only israeli airline) has had by far the most hijacking/sabotaging attempts of any airline by muslim terrorist, yet there has only been one successfull hijacking which was more than 30 years ago. Israeli Airport security agents are actually trained on how to properlly profile, and can sniff out a terrorist like a coonhound.

It is simple insanity to do the same check on a elderly women in a wheeler chair as you would do to a 25 year old saudi muslim.

America has to come to grips that profiling is neccessary if we aim to win this "war on terror"

the founding fathers in no way could have envisioned what we are going through now and we are simply taking a far too strict interpertation of the constitution. If we still require "probable cause" rather than "reseaonable suspicion" as a prerequisite to take action we are in for a world of hurt.

I disagree. Do you know how many people in this country, let alone travelers, APPEAR to be of Arab-descent, but are actually Italian, Hispanic, Indian? Or how about the thousands of arabs that live in the US that are citizens, peaceful, trying to live an American way of life. We are a FREE country. To take the rights away from a group of people (such as Invasion of Privacy) based on physical appearence is just rediculous and goes against what this country stands for: FREEDOM. You might as well give your guns away and put cameras in your house, because the constitution is just a snot rag if we started doing that. Just my .02. If we went by that logic, than every male ages 15-55 in every Arab country would be suspect. The very effort we are putting to 'modernize' and 'liberate' these countries would be a waste of time.

If we went by that logic, than every male ages 15-55 in every Arab country would be suspect.

Correct, they are suspect.

This is the smartest thing I've heard yet. Will the US start doing this and announce it? Probably not, why? Because of the Libtards in this world that need a bomb to drop in their lap before they finally figure it out.

For once I'd also like to see the Leaders of the Muslim Religous Groups or Arab Nations speak out against it's own people creating these attrocites rather than spewing their b.s. and whining about how they are being profiled. Now you are being profiled, live with it, do something about it, (as heard on the radio yesterday, if need be "eat your own").

LONDON, England -- Despite a high level of alert at British airports, a 12-year-old boy managed to board a plane at Gatwick without a passport, ticket or boarding pass.

Tuesday's incident has raised concerns over security procedures in the wake of an alleged plot to blow up planes on trans-Atlantic flight.

The boy was detected by member of the Monarch Airlines cabin crew only after he was seated and had been given a drink and a snack.

He was removed from the plane by police officers before the flight took off.

"The boy had passed through a full security screening process and we are confident there was no threat to passengers, staff or the aircraft at any time," said Stewart McDonald, a spokesman for BAA, which operates Gatwick, Heathrow and five other major UK airports.

BAA has launched an investigation into the incident, McDonald said Wednesday.

The boy had run away from a care home in northwest England and boarded a plane for Lisbon at 6 a.m. on Monday before the other passengers, the UK's Press Association reported.

I disagree. Do you know how many people in this country, let alone travelers, APPEAR to be of Arab-descent, but are actually Italian, Hispanic, Indian? Or how about the thousands of arabs that live in the US that are citizens, peaceful, trying to live an American way of life. We are a FREE country. To take the rights away from a group of people (such as Invasion of Privacy) based on physical appearence is just rediculous and goes against what this country stands for: FREEDOM. You might as well give your guns away and put cameras in your house, because the constitution is just a snot rag if we started doing that. Just my .02. If we went by that logic, than every male ages 15-55 in every Arab country would be suspect. The very effort we are putting to 'modernize' and 'liberate' these countries would be a waste of time.

i completly and wholeheartedly disagree, and guess what? I'm a 23 year old biracial male, I could easily be percieved as an arab/muslim terrorist. I would not care if i was stopped and searched in line at the airport, in fact i would be dissapointed if i were not.

There is no such thing as invasion of privacy when you are going onto a commercial airplane along with 200-300 other passengers. In such a situation your privacy does not exist. If invasion of privacy is a legitamite arguement, then we might as well take away the airport security's power to x-ray our bags and have passengers walk through metal detecters, after all these things are private, right?

This is not a 4th amendment issue, it is a simple perversion of what your forefathers set forth taking their words to extremes far beyond they would have ever imagined.

i completly and wholeheartedly disagree, and guess what? I'm a 23 year old biracial male, I could easily be percieved as an arab/muslim terrorist. I would not care if i was stopped and searched in line at the airport, in fact i would be dissapointed if i were not.

There is no such thing as invasion of privacy when you are going onto a commercial airplane along with 200-300 other passengers. In such a situation your privacy does not exist. If invasion of privacy is a legitamite arguement, then we might as well take away the airport security's power to x-ray our bags and have passengers walk through metal detecters, after all these things are private, right?

This is not a 4th amendment issue, it is a simple perversion of what your forefathers set forth taking their words to extremes far beyond they would have ever imagined.

Airports is one thing. But it's going to get worse before it gets better. Where do we draw the line, with protecting our rights and being safe from terrorists? It seems like an excuse to break certain personal freedoms this country takes for granted. I prefer not to debate these types of things on the internet, but I spoke my peice: I just don't beleive that racial profiling is neseccary, and I think it can lead to bad things. Take WW2, rounding up Japanese people and putting them in camps and jails! I'm afraid that our state of freedom is slowly turning into something else.

There is no such thing as invasion of privacy when you are going onto a commercial airplane along with 200-300 other passengers. In such a situation your privacy does not exist.

That's the crucial point, and one I don't understand why people don't get except to say that people have a serious misunderstanding of how rights should be applied. Your right to not be searched in such a way is a restriction on what the government can do, not private organizations. But people confuse rights with empowerment and demand private parties respect their 'rights,' like for example their 'right' to restrict smoking in someone else's restaurant. Whereas a true understanding that a right is a restriction of government power would I think lead more people to understand that a private party, such as an airline, can require body cavity searches for all passengers if it wanted to. Problems arise because people demand empowerment instead of rights, and because they have the government providing services that should be provided for privately along side or instead of the government service, the line gets fuzzy.

If Southwest wants to they can stick a probe up everyone's ass or shackle them to their seats. It's their airline, it's their rules, and no one has the 'right' to fly on it under any conditions other than what the provider allows. Saying otherwise is arguing for empowerment, not rights, and eventually that empowerment will empower someone who wants to do harm. But once you realize you don't have the right to use someone else's property under any conditions other than what you both mutually agree to, the problem disappears. Of course if the government is providing some of the service, people will start demanding 'rights'/empowerment, and they will get those allowances, along with the terrorists.

This is the smartest thing I've heard yet. Will the US start doing this and announce it? Probably not, why? Because of the Libtards in this world that need a bomb to drop in their lap before they finally figure it out.

For once I'd also like to see the Leaders of the Muslim Religous Groups or Arab Nations speak out against it's own people creating these attrocites rather than spewing their b.s. and whining about how they are being profiled. Now you are being profiled, live with it, do something about it, (as heard on the radio yesterday, if need be "eat your own").

Profiling is not solely based on your skin color, race and ethnicity. It takes into consideration of a basket of factors that correlates strongly to terrorism. Go fly El Al and find out first hand. Make sure you visit some Arab countries first before you fly El Al, so you can show them your well stamped passport.

Racial profiling or call it whatever the you want will save lives and save hours of waiting in line at airport check-ins.

Israel has been racial profiling Arab Muslim males in the age range of 17-45 since El Al first started offering flights in the Late 60's. And make no mistake about it, El Al (the only israeli airline) has had by far the most hijacking/sabotaging attempts of any airline by muslim terrorist, yet there has only been one successfull hijacking which was more than 30 years ago. Israeli Airport security agents are actually trained on how to properlly profile, and can sniff out a terrorist like a coonhound.

It is simple insanity to do the same check on a elderly women in a wheeler chair as you would do to a 25 year old saudi muslim.

America has to come to grips that profiling is neccessary if we aim to win this "war on terror"

the founding fathers in no way could have envisioned what we are going through now and we are simply taking a far too strict interpertation of the constitution. If we still require "probable cause" rather than "reseaonable suspicion" as a prerequisite to take action we are in for a world of hurt.

Exactly. El Al passenger screening process is legendary and has been basically foolproof. Lessons learnt in blood. Much to say about their method. It has worked so far.

Perhaps it would be useful for El Al to offer training in their methods for airport officials from other countries. If they've been doing this for 40 years then they must have a wealth of valuable experience that would be invaluable for the rest of the world.

Exactly. You don't have a constitutional right to fly, just like there is no constitutional right to have a drivers license.

Problem is you do have a constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, and if the government is providing security services to the airport they are bound by the constitution. The simple answer is use the government for security services where those bounds don't matter and don't hinder them too much, such as developing and applying behavioral profiles to catch terrorists. Then let the carriers institute whatever restrictions they want and enforce them privately at their end. The private security forces could not arrest someone they thought was a threat, but they could bar that person from the flight which is the critical issue, and then serve as a witness to the government forces to get them probable cause to hold and search the person considered a threat. I think that would let us best mirror the more effective approaches of other countries without giving the government powers it shouldn't have.

Actually, citizens who are not law enforcement CAN arrest someone if they catch them in the act of committing a crime (such as attempting to carry weapons onto an airplane). It's called "citizen's arrest".

Here in North America the right to be free from racial or religous discrimination is engrained in the constitution. Anyone that thinks this right should be sacrificed in the name of "efficiency" doesn't deserve to hold these rights.

Here in North America the right to be free from racial or religous discrimination is engrained in the constitution. Anyone that thinks this right should be sacrificed in the name of "efficiency" doesn't deserve to hold these rights.

yea, you know, your right. Who cares if 250 innocent people get blown up over the atlantic, as long as Hajij from Saudi Arabia isn't offended in line to get on a plane, because that would be intolerable.

"...Border Searches .--''That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration.'' 87 Authorized by the First Congress, 88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops. 89 Moreover, while prolonged detention of travelers beyond the routine customs search and inspection must be justified by the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis, 90 Terry protections as to the length and intrusiveness of the search do not apply. 91..."

In domestic flight, consent to search is the condition to fly. You don't give consent to search, then you don't fly. If you want to fly, you can't invoke protection against illegal government searches and seizure.

Again, there is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane. You may have to give up certain rights in order for the privilege of flying. If it is an inconvienience thats just tough. Take the bus.

Bingo!!!!

"....did not infringe any right to travel, as that right does not guarantee travel by any mode and the plaintiff could have chosen alternative means. See Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999), Monarch Travel Serv. Assoc. Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1972). ..."

If so, then this entire thread is guilty of farting in the wind too. They allready profile in the US. Happens all the time with the the no fly lists and wiretapping. Everybody else just gets screwed over and inconvenienced at the airport "pour out your liquids and take your shoes off" so some high school drop out earning $8.50 an hour can inspect you. Does anyone here honestly beleive that middle eastern travelers do not face any extra scrutiny when flying to the US? People have been discriminating against folks on the grounds of religion/ethnicity for hundreds of years in America. They don't need government permission to magically turn on the profiling button.

Here in North America the right to be free from racial or religous discrimination is engrained in the constitution. Anyone that thinks this right should be sacrificed in the name of "efficiency" doesn't deserve to hold these rights.

Newsflash: rights restrict what the government can do. While the government can't be racist, any individual who wants to hold those beliefs can. And, though I admit courts disagree with me and will simply say they are wrong, private organizations can discriminate if they want to. It's called freedom of association. And if I'm running an airline and everytime one of either my or my competitor's planes explodes or crashes into a building there's a Muslim fundamentalist at the controls of the bomb or the plane respectively, I'm concentrating on Muslims to prevent that. It is not a matter of efficiency to concentrate on Muslims from places like Saudi Arabia and the like, it is a matter of stupidity not to. When they start recruiting red headed mothers of four to blow up planes I'll strip search a few. Until then I'm concentrating on the problem population and if that population is defined in part or whole along ethnic/religious lines, I'm incorporating those standards regardless of whose feelings are hurt. Searching every 12th person to get on the plane only makes sense if you're at war with every 12th person getting on a plane.

They allready profile in the US. Happens all the time with the the no fly lists and wiretapping. Everybody else just gets screwed over and inconvenienced at the airport "pour out your liquids and take your shoes off" so some high school drop out earning $8.50 an hour can inspect you. Does anyone here honestly beleive that middle eastern travelers do not face any extra scrutiny when flying to the US?

actually, I have noticed that seems that airport security is going out of its way not to profile middle eastern men recently. And this is because they are SO scared of being accused of profiling they actually are reverse profiling by passing up inspection of suspicious arab looking men.

you said it yourself, these people are usually low-education, low-pay workers, they probably fear greatly being fired for profiling based on race/religion. And they would be too poor to hire a good lawyer and in no way be qualified to defend their stance on why they did what they did especially against ruthless ACLU type lawyers, which would surely align against someone who was accused of profiling.

whats the alternative, let them go on the plane, worst case scenerio the plane is hijacked and/or blown up. Chances are they won't get fired for something like that. There was not a single firing or resignation after 9-11 the single greatest intelligence failure in modern history, why would there be after another succesfull hijacking. this is the point we have gotten to, profiling bad, you get fired or sued for something like that. failure to act resulting in the loss of hundreds of innocent lives, hmmm.... oh well, guess we'll just go on as usual.

Originally Posted by CDB

Newsflash: rights restrict what the government can do. While the government can't be racist, any individual who wants to hold those beliefs can. And, though I admit courts disagree with me and will simply say they are wrong, private organizations can discriminate if they want to. It's called freedom of association. And if I'm running an airline and everytime one of either my or my competitor's planes explodes or crashes into a building there's a Muslim fundamentalist at the controls of the bomb or the plane respectively, I'm concentrating on Muslims to prevent that. It is not a matter of efficiency to concentrate on Muslims from places like Saudi Arabia and the like, it is a matter of stupidity not to. When they start recruiting red headed mothers of four to blow up planes I'll strip search a few. Until then I'm concentrating on the problem population and if that population is defined in part or whole along ethnic/religious lines, I'm incorporating those standards regardless of whose feelings are hurt. Searching every 12th person to get on the plane only makes sense if you're at war with every 12th person getting on a plane.

Don't let this "Penetrate Your Brain" as Omarjackson suggested. Most of it is bunk.

Originally Posted by CDB

Newsflash: rights restrict what the government can do.

Abso****inlutely. Which is why I don't think they should be sacrificed in the name of Government efficiencey. It would be more efficient for the cops to kick down the door of suspected drug dealers, detain them without charges and deny them a right to a lawyer. But I think we can see that this sort if thing is "bad". When the "forefathers" mapped out the constitution they had this sort of thing in mind.

While the government can't be racist, any individual who wants to hold those beliefs can. And, though I admit courts disagree with me and will simply say they are wrong, private organizations can discriminate if they want to. It's called freedom of association.

Wrong again. If a buisness or individual, denies me the right to eat lunch at a particular counter because of my skin colour, or tells me my skin is too dark to use that water fountain they are violating my rights. If a landlord explicitly refuses me the right to rent an apartment because of my religion or race then they've got a little legal problem on their hands. There was this thing called the Civil RIghts MOvement that you might be familiar with. "Freedom of Association" doesn't grant them the right to do any of the above. THey don't have to like me. They don't have to be my friend. THey can beleive whatever the **** they want about me, but formal discrimination on the grounds of race/religion is illegal for good reasons.

And if I'm running an airline and everytime one of either my or my competitor's planes explodes or crashes into a building there's a Muslim fundamentalist at the controls of the bomb or the plane respectively, I'm concentrating on Muslims to prevent that. It is not a matter of efficiency to concentrate on Muslims from places like Saudi Arabia and the like, it is a matter of stupidity not to. When they start recruiting red headed mothers of four to blow up planes I'll strip search a few. Until then I'm concentrating on the problem population and if that population is defined in part or whole along ethnic/religious lines, I'm incorporating those standards regardless of whose feelings are hurt. Searching every 12th person to get on the plane only makes sense if you're at war with every 12th person getting on a plane.

Again, I won't claim to be a constitutional expert. Whether or not flight is a "right" is something that can be disputed. Even then it allready happens. Saying otherwise is naiive. THere a re problems with profiling from a policing standpoint. My major objection is that it puts efficiency over equality. That's backasswards.

Abso****inlutely. Which is why I don't think they should be sacrificed in the name of Government efficiencey. It would be more efficient for the cops to kick down the door of suspected drug dealers, detain them without charges and deny them a right to a lawyer. But I think we can see that this sort if thing is "bad". When the "forefathers" mapped out the constitution they had this sort of thing in mind.

Actually when our forefathers mapped out the constitution they were much more lax. Here in NY earlier last century the government was opening mail when it felt like. However much as your Fourth Ammendment rights do protect your home, they don't protect your "right" to use someone else's property without meeting their requirements for doing so. Being searched before you go on a plane, especially if it's by a private firm, does not in any way violate a single basic right. Not allowing that search, if the airline wanted to administer it, is a violation of someone's rights, their right to set the terms for the use of their service and their property as they see fit.

Wrong again. If a buisness or individual, denies me the right to eat lunch at a particular counter because of my skin colour, or tells me my skin is too dark to use that water fountain they are violating my rights.

That is the modern interpretation of rights and it's incorrect. The 'right' to use someone else's property against their wishes is not a right at all, it is empowerment. You have agreed a right is a restraint on government action. Forcing someone to serve food to someone who, for whatever reason, they don't want to serve requires a positive action on the part of the government to abridge that person's property rights to empower another to eat there. Same for any other product or service, apartments, loans, whatever. You nor I nor anyone else has the 'right' to use anyone else's property on any other terms, if any, than what they set out and we can mutually agree to. Anything else is not rights it is enforced empowerment. Now as I said courts disagree these days. They are wrong.

Again, I won't claim to be a constitutional expert. Whether or not flight is a "right" is something that can be disputed.

No it can't. By any standard of rights it is not a right. Nor even if it could be construed as a right can denial of service by a private company be a violation of rights, anymore than investors refusing to underwrite my new newspaper is a violation of freedom of the press or speech, nor is a person not letting me hold a political rally on their front lawn a violation of my right to assemble, nor is a person not letting me simply have their car a violation of my right to move around in general. There is a difference between rights, freedom and empowerment.

My major objection is that it puts efficiency over equality. That's backasswards.

Grant that and you're still wrong because treating all people equally when the threat does not equally eminate from all people no matter how they are grouped is insane. Far be it from me as I'm going down in flames on a hijacked plane to perhaps wonder whether or not I would have more life in front of me if security had searched the arab with smoke coming out of his pants and not the old white lady in the wheelchair or the four year old asian kid in batman pajamas.

You are not trading liberty for security in that instance because your liberty does not include the 'right' to fly where ever you want on whatever plane you want, if only because the freedom to do something does not equate to the ability to do so.

That is the modern interpretation of rights and it's incorrect. The 'right' to use someone else's property against their wishes is not a right at all, it is empowerment. You have agreed a right is a restraint on government action.

That is only one type of right. You're talking about negative freedom. ie) Freedom From. I beleive in positive liberty ie) Freedom to.

Forcing someone to serve food to someone who, for whatever reason, they don't want to serve requires a positive action on the part of the government to abridge that person's property rights to empower another to eat there. Same for any other product or service, apartments, loans, whatever. You nor I nor anyone else has the 'right' to use anyone else's property on any other terms, if any, than what they set out and we can mutually agree to. Anything else is not rights it is enforced empowerment. Now as I said courts disagree these days. They are wrong.

I completely disagree. I beleive in positive liberty ie) freedom to, not just freedom from. You're basically arguing in favour of a buisnesses "right" to deny service on the grounds of race/religion or to chose not to hire someone because of their skin colour ect. You're sounding like a libertoid. The basic groundwork of a liberal democratic, capitalist society requires that individuals are judged on their merits. My opinion: if you don't want to play by this set of rules that treats people fairly don't play at all. Don't own a buisness if you are going to racially discriminate in hiring. Don't put your apartment up for rent if you can't follow the basic rules of the market. That's your freedom. That's your choice. Once you own a buisness, and offer your good service, you can't discriminate. That's an incroachment on my liberty.

And simply because the enforcement of this right requires "positive" government action doesn't make it any less important. We all have a right to life. If a homocidal maniac was to say...break into my house and stab me to death, the government would have a positive obligation to enforce my right to life, by arresting and charging my murderer. The same applies to the type of equality I described above. If a buisness posts a "no darkies allowed" sign, they should be forced to take it down and let me in.

the 12th person thing is just so it takes any prejudice out of the equation and makes it completely random. Just like on traffic blocks...Although it can still be abused it is less likely to be.

Oh I know the reason, it just makes no sense to me. Especially at traffic stops. I would rather trust cops to pull over reckless drivers than stop every nth driver and hope for a score. And the ones who do abuse it, punish them. Making other cops do something stupid but politically correct as a means of dealing bad apples, no matter how many, seems counter productive.

Originally Posted by Clubberlang

That is only one type of right. You're talking about negative freedom. ie) Freedom From. I beleive in positive liberty ie) Freedom to.

That is indeed the supposed dicotomy, but once more it is not a dicotomy. Positive liberty is empowerment, not rights, and often requires the violation of the negative rights of others to enforce. The enforcement or exercise of one right can't come at the expense of the enforcement or exercise of another. If it does then you're not enforcing or exercising rights, you're exercising and enforcing empowerment.

I completely disagree. I beleive in positive liberty ie) freedom to, not just freedom from. You're basically arguing in favour of a buisnesses "right" to deny service on the grounds of race/religion or to chose not to hire someone because of their skin colour ect. You're sounding like a libertoid. The basic groundwork of a liberal democratic, capitalist society requires that individuals are judged on their merits.

Judging people on their merits has absolutely diddly squat to do with capitalism, liberal democracy or much of anything else. Capitalism is about private property and free exchange, which includes the right to deny entry to or use of property for any reason or to not exchange for any reason. Because anything else is empowering someone else to violate the property rights of another.

My opinion: if you don't want to play by this set of rules that treats people fairly don't play at all.

Fair is a subjective evaluation. I do not care about fair, nor should the government enforce fair. Some people think it's fair that they live in a trailer and suck down welfare checks in the form of deep fried oreos paid for in part by the sweat off my brow. **** fair. Fair has nothing to do with rights, rights are about just claims. A just claim to eat out does not mean a just claim to eat out at a specific restaurant if the owner doesn't want you there. Positive liberty is not liberty or rights, it is once more empowerment which necessarily has to come at the expense of the rights of others.

Don't own a buisness if you are going to racially discriminate in hiring. Don't put your apartment up for rent if you can't follow the basic rules of the market.

So if people don't agree with you they should starve? Or have th use of their property limited or expanded beyond the bounds they want to set? Perhaps you could answer this question: by what right do you presume to tell people how to behave beyond anything that affects you negatively? A denial of service does not affect you negatively, you're no worse off than you were before the denial. You might not like the fact that some people are racists, but it is their right to be so if they so choose. And it is their right to deny entry to their property to blacks, whites, asians, people who play checkers or who ever.

That's your freedom. That's your choice. Once you own a buisness, and offer your good service, you can't discriminate. That's an incroachment on my liberty.

No, it isn't. Forcing some to do business with you is an encroachment on their rights and freedom. How about their right to freedom of association? Why do their rights get trumped to empower you? Because you say so? Because 9 whores in black robes in DC say so? Need a little more than that to go on when defining a right. No justification of positive liberty has ever been able to answer the rights/empowerment dicotomy, nor has it explained why, even if one accepts the idea of positive liberty, why the positive liberty of some trumps the negative liberty of others.

Not to mention, taken to it's logical conclusion positive liberty means you have a right to anything and everything you want. Afterall if you have the 'right' to eat eggs at a specific restaurant and they're out of stock when you show up, well then why not take them to court over it? Haven't they violated your positive rights? There are no definable parameters as to where positive liberty stops as it's based on subjective evaluations of "fair," "reasonable" and the like. Negative liberty is well defined, logically defensible, imposes no costs on anyone and does not extend to and through the subjective stratosphere of "fair" and "reasonable."

For the most part, yes it is. I didn't bother to read in detail, but it seems the usual waxing rhetorical nonsense in high gear.

After all the waxing and huffing, at the end of the much ado about nothing, people would either follow the rules or you don't fly. The law of the land rules. You don't have to agree with it nor do you have to like it. You are ONLY required to abide by the law of land.

They allready profile in the US. Happens all the time with the the no fly lists and wiretapping. Everybody else just gets screwed over and inconvenienced at the airport "pour out your liquids and take your shoes off" so some high school drop out earning $8.50 an hour can inspect you. Does anyone here honestly beleive that middle eastern travelers do not face any extra scrutiny when flying to the US? People have been discriminating against folks on the grounds of religion/ethnicity for hundreds of years in America. They don't need government permission to magically turn on the profiling button.

It ain't discrimination, dude. If you want to complain about the inconvenience, you should place your blame on the real culprit, the terrorists.

That is indeed the supposed dicotomy, but once more it is not a dicotomy. Positive liberty is empowerment, not rights, and often requires the violation of the negative rights of others to enforce. The enforcement or exercise of one right can't come at the expense of the enforcement or exercise of another. If it does then you're not enforcing or exercising rights, you're exercising and enforcing empowerment.

The same applies to the type of discrimination we've been talking about. You have the right to own a buisness. I have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race. If said buisness discriminates on these grounds, then they trample my rights in excercising their rights.

THe thing is you have this view of rights/freedom that sees the state as the greatest threat to individual liberty. It is outdated. Private citizens and Buisness are an equally large threat. The function of the state is to uphold/protect my liberty. There is no liberty without the state. That would be anarcy.

Judging people on their merits has absolutely diddly squat to do with capitalism, liberal democracy or much of anything else. Capitalism is about private property and free exchange, which includes the right to deny entry to or use of property for any reason or to not exchange for any reason. Because anything else is empowering someone else to violate the property rights of another.

Fair is a subjective evaluation. I do not care about fair, nor should the government enforce fair. Some people think it's fair that they live in a trailer and suck down welfare checks in the form of deep fried oreos paid for in part by the sweat off my brow. **** fair. Fair has nothing to do with rights, rights are about just claims. A just claim to eat out does not mean a just claim to eat out at a specific restaurant if the owner doesn't want you there. Positive liberty is not liberty or rights, it is once more empowerment which necessarily has to come at the expense of the rights of others.

Uhmm I'd say that fair is NOT a subjective evaluation. If it were, then the same standard of justice you are laying out is equally subjective, and this entire discussion is circular. If justice were subjective there'd be no courts ect. Human beings are thinking animals. While we aren't perfect, deciding that "fairness" lies outside of our ability to understand/acheive is a terribly myopic view.

So if people don't agree with you they should starve? Or have th use of their property limited or expanded beyond the bounds they want to set? Perhaps you could answer this question: by what right do you presume to tell people how to behave beyond anything that affects you negatively? A denial of service does not affect you negatively, you're no worse off than you were before the denial.

Mkay.. take a look at a couple of centuries of Jim Crow in the south. I'd say a few million people were "worse off" because the government allowed citizens the "freedom" to discriminate If private individuals are given free reign to discriminate then it endangers the rights of others to enjoy the same standards of life and liberty for no legitimate reason.

You might not like the fact that some people are racists, but it is their right to be so if they so choose. And it is their right to deny entry to their property to blacks, whites, asians, people who play checkers or who ever.

You simply have this wrong. People still have the right to be racist today. You can beleive whatever the hell you want about x race. Hell, you can deny entry or employment to people who play checkers, smell like crap, pick their nose ect. because those are all CHOICES. Because no one choses their skin colour they should not be penalized for it.

No, it isn't. Forcing some to do business with you is an encroachment on their rights and freedom. How about their right to freedom of association? Why do their rights get trumped to empower you? Because you say so? Because 9 whores in black robes in DC say so? Need a little more than that to go on when defining a right. No justification of positive liberty has ever been able to answer the rights/empowerment dicotomy, nor has it explained why, even if one accepts the idea of positive liberty, why the positive liberty of some trumps the negative liberty of others.

See my argument about the role of the state in prosecuting murderers. Under your logic, the very presence of the police to defend a citizens right to safety and security is a form of "empowerment" used to pursuit positive liberty. This is somehow OK?, yet others are not? In fact, it's a prime example of why the presence of the state is a necessarry precondition for any type of liberty.

Not to mention, taken to it's logical conclusion positive liberty means you have a right to anything and everything you want. Afterall if you have the 'right' to eat eggs at a specific restaurant and they're out of stock when you show up, well then why not take them to court over it? Haven't they violated your positive rights? There are no definable parameters as to where positive liberty stops as it's based on subjective evaluations of "fair," "reasonable" and the like. Negative liberty is well defined, logically defensible, imposes no costs on anyone and does not extend to and through the subjective stratosphere of "fair" and "reasonable."

Your arguing in a vacuum. Negative libery imposes no costs on anyone? By that argument, we abandon things like child labour laws and every standard of freedom from discrimination(race, gender sexual orientation). Under this system, power justifies power. It's bad. LIke it or not the state is a mechanism for generating order. Less state intervention does not equal more freedom.

Here's a question, you seem to beleive that the state should not be allowed to practice discrimination. Why are private citizsens any different.

But I do completely understand your POV. I just think it's hella wrong. People far smarter than you or I have argued this stuff to death. We aren't going to find an answer here....

because those are all CHOICES. Because no one choses their skin colour they should not be penalized for it.
....

People choose their religion though.

Here's the thing. The constitution gives you the right to practice your religion and forbids anyone to interfere with the practice of that religion ... to a degree.

It does NOT however say that no one is allowed to discriminate based on religion in a private enterprise so long as their discrimination does not interfere with the other person's ability to practice that religion.

Flying has nothing to do with practicing a religion. Ergo, demanding someone be searched before boarding a flight does not hinder their ability to practice their religion. Thus it is LEGAL to search people based on religious affiliation.

Now. Since people don't always wear their religion on their sleeve, and it is in fact the airline's protected right to discriminate based on religion, it is ok for an airline to narrow their search to Midle Easterners. Why? Because it is a simple FACT that the VAST majority of Middle Easterners are Muslim. Though they pulled the person aside because they are Middle Eastern, they aren't targetting them because they are Middle Eastern directly but in fact because the think the person is Muslim.

And you know what? When the airlines aren't impeded, and they start searching Middle Eastern Muslims ... ALL Middle Eastern Muslims, then maybe, just maybe enough Middle Eastern Muslims who are peaceful will get pissed off enough at the extremists they may just start ACTING out against them instead of sitting quiet.

This bellyaching about discrimination based on skin color and religion totally misses the whole point.

No one is barred from flying NOR being seggregated in flight, based on their race or religion. That is a fact.

So, what discrimination to speak of anyway?

As for profiling, get some common sense guys. If the APB announced that a 200lb Hispanic male is a suspect in the liquour store robbery, then it made no sense whatsoever not to focus your attention on a chubby HISPANIC MALE. There is no racial, size or sexist profiling here. It is freaking simple common sense. If you set up a road block, then you are not going to search a car full of 90lb 80 yr old White Grandmas. You pay attention to a car driven by a fat Hispanic male! IF you call that discrimination, then .......

If the majority, if not all, of the terrorists are of a certain faith, of a certain age group, and of a certain ethnic decent, then focusing your investigation, inspection and monitoring, on passengers that fit this profile, is simply common sense. It isn't discrimination, unless all passengers of that profile are categorically barred from flying or seggregated for flying.

The same applies to the type of discrimination we've been talking about. You have the right to own a buisness. I have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race. If said buisness discriminates on these grounds, then they trample my rights in excercising their rights.

You do not have a right to freedom from discrimination on the part of a private party, only from the government.

THe thing is you have this view of rights/freedom that sees the state as the greatest threat to individual liberty. It is outdated. Private citizens and Buisness are an equally large threat. The function of the state is to uphold/protect my liberty. There is no liberty without the state. That would be anarcy.

Private businesses by definition cannot be a threat to liberty, only the state can. Your association with any private entity is voluntary as is their association with you. Therefore they cannot restrict your liberty. Only organizations which use force to compel people to do things against their will can do that, organizations like the state and the mafia, gangs, etc.

Uhmm I'd say that fair is NOT a subjective evaluation. If it were, then the same standard of justice you are laying out is equally subjective, and this entire discussion is circular.

If you start from the premise that each person owns themselves it is not circular. Fair is subjective. If not, please let me know the objective definition of fair. Negative liberty is entirely derived from an application of basic property rights. For a good summary of that I'd suggest John Stewart Mill and specific passages of Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty.

Mkay.. take a look at a couple of centuries of Jim Crow in the south. I'd say a few million people were "worse off" because the government allowed citizens the "freedom" to discriminate

Since Jim Crow came into being after the Civil War it'd be pretty hard to have a couple of centuries worth of it. That being the case you are also seriously misinformed about its nature. Jim Crow encompassed state laws which required segregation. That some people would like to segregate on their own wouldn't be in doubt. However there are pretty harsh economic consequences for doing so and such situations are only maintainable on a large scale with government support. You're looking at state sponsored and support racism and blaming it on private businesses.

However people in the end were still not worse off. Once more, if a person is in need of something and they are denied service for any reason they are no worse off than they were before. If a person is in need of something and someone agrees to provide service under certain conditions, whether or not you or I agree with them as moral or ethical, the person receiving the service is better off by definition. Rights can not trump each other like you suggest, and within the framework of negative liberty as derrived form property rights they do not interfere with each other, because in that framework rights are not confused with empowerment.

If private individuals are given free reign to discriminate then it endangers the rights of others to enjoy the same standards of life and liberty for no legitimate reason.

If private individuals are given free reign and engage in such discrimination without state support they generally lose fairly quickly. An employer who refuses to hire blacks denies himself their productivity. A business that refuses to serve whites loses the potential profit from each one of those sales. And in each instance there will always be someone willing to capitalize on that lost MRP or profit respectively by hiring and/or serving those people respectively. Unless of course the state outlaws such actions, in which case the discrimination will go on indefinitely.

See my argument about the role of the state in prosecuting murderers. Under your logic, the very presence of the police to defend a citizens right to safety and security is a form of "empowerment" used to pursuit positive liberty. This is somehow OK?, yet others are not? In fact, it's a prime example of why the presence of the state is a necessarry precondition for any type of liberty.

You are very mixed up on this subject and all I can suggest is that you do some more reading on it. The police are not empowering anyone, they are preventing and/or catching those who commit violent acts against others. That you can't see the difference between someone murdering someone and someone not allowing someone into their restaurant is a bit disturbing.

Your arguing in a vacuum. Negative libery imposes no costs on anyone? By that argument, we abandon things like child labour laws and every standard of freedom from discrimination(race, gender sexual orientation). Under this system, power justifies power. It's bad. LIke it or not the state is a mechanism for generating order. Less state intervention does not equal more freedom.

Less state intervention by definition means more freedom. Please explain how negative liberty imposes a cost on someone.

Here's a question, you seem to beleive that the state should not be allowed to practice discrimination. Why are private citizsens any different.

Actually you need to reread my posts then. It seems to me you're the one who can't tell the state from private citizens/orgs.

dude, our disagreement doesn't stem from a "lack of knowledge" on my part or a need to read more. If you are, I suggest reading some T H Greene or Hegel. We're basically at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this thing and we're not gonna agree.

That you can't see the between someone murdering someone and someone not allowing someone into their restaurant is a bit disturbing.

you're missing the point and being silly here. They ARE different because well... they are two different things. But if we take someone's right to life as sancrosanct, we have to give power to the state to help secure this right. Otherwise my I am left to defend my "right to life" on my own. This is the same type of "empowerment" that you seem to think voids positive rights. If you don't think freedom from discrimination is a right to be defended by the government then simply state such. Arguing that it is invalid because it requires government "empowerment" is hella weak. It overlooks the very reason that government exists.

If private individuals are given free reign and engage in such discrimination without state support they generally lose fairly quickly. An employer who refuses to hire blacks denies himself their productivity. A business that refuses to serve whites loses the potential profit from each one of those sales. And in each instance there will always be someone willing to capitalize on that lost MRP or profit respectively by hiring and/or serving those people respectively. Unless of course the state outlaws such actions, in which case the discrimination will go on indefinitely.

There are several examples in which the pursuit of profits, and blatant racism are not antithetical. It can be "good buisness" to be racist. You're making "free enterprise" a primary good and putting all else second. That's backasswards. We're simply not going to agree on this.

Please explain how negative liberty imposes a cost on someone

Lets see. If we say give buisness negative liberty that protects them from

a-child labour laws
b-pollution regulations
c-building safety codes

The world is an uglier place. It imposes harm on anyone that suffers under any of the above. But I allready know what your response is. My response. The market will not solve these problems. I fail to see how the ceaseless pursuit of profits could do this. If your answer is "so what" at least we are free then again, you have a different definition of freedom from myself.

If you think that freedom to starve, die and suffer is something to be defended then we ,again, are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Actually you need to reread my posts then. It seems to me you're the one who can't tell the state from private citizens/orgs.

The logic of rights you propose gives private citizens/orgs with far more power than the state to restrict my rights. It simply has to be "profitable"